Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974 (1/2)
Impeachment Hearings: House Judiciary Committee, July 27, 1974 (1/2)
[00.02.00] Mr. WIGGINS. ----that the President personally acted to corrupt the due administration of justice by intentionally engaging in a plan or design, a course of conduct or a plan which was intentionally designed to obstruct justice. Now. is that a fair statement? Mr. RAILSBACK. What I Intend by the amendment is to suggest that Richard M. Nixon, if it can be shown in the Senate, and if he can be held to account in the Senate, that he used his power of his high office, engaged personally and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such unlawful entry to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful and covert activities. In other words, the words speak for themselves. Mr. WIGGINS. I understand. You mean what you said. Well, I am running out of time. I want to clear up the question, however, of the conduct of his aides. In order to have this be, President's acts, you would require, I am sure, that at least the knowledge of the acts of his aides, or that, he instructed them with the requisite corrupt intent to obstruct justice, would you not? Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman? Excuse me. Mr. RAILSBACK. I would answer the gentleman by saying that the language still speaks for itself. But, it is my belief that to hold Richard Nixon to account and to remove him from office it must proven that he has committed a serious offense, serious enough for which he should be removed from office. Now, if he directed something, or if he participated in something or if he Was involved in something that was clearly illicit, if he falsely misled the American people, or if 'he obstructed justice or impeded justice. or interfered with the due administration of justice, or if he abused the power of the sensitive, agencies of the IRS, well then I think that is what he is going to be held to account for. Mr. WIGGINS. All right. Fine. I appreciate the gentleman's explanation and I support the gentleman's amendment as I explained. The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman has expired. Mr. DENNIS. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? I think I have, a little time, left. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair -will state pursuant to the policy that was set, no member could reserve any time. but if the gentleman is seeking more time" he can request unanimous consent, since he has already been recognized once on the amendment. Mr. DENNIS. I appreciate that, and if I could have it, I would like I to ask, the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Sarbanes, a question. The CHAIRMAN. Well. without objection. Mr. DENNIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask the, gentleman this: Do you subscribe to Mr. Railsback's explanation of the meaning of his amendment, responsibility of the President for third person's actions, or do 3 feel that his amendment will support your own theory on that subject as announced by you Mr. SARBANES. Well, as I understood the last response, The gentleman from Illinois Mr. Railsback, gave, I thought that was proper elaboration of his amendment. As I understood it, part of what we have been discussing is this whole concept of the Madison superintendency theory, and I think this is very clear with respect to the proposition, and that proposition is not contained in this article as a potential premise. Mr. DENNIS. If I understand your- answer, then you feel that -Mr. Railsback's version comports very well with your own, as advanced before the amendment. Mr. SARBANES. Well, I must Confess to the gentleman from Indiana that I did not pay the, close attention to the full colloquy between -Mr. Railsback and Mr. Wiggins that I should have in order to respond definitively to the question that he has just put to me, and I apologize for that. But, it is my impression that the last response which I heard Mr. Railsback give seemed -to me a satisfactory elaboration of this amendment. Mr. DENNIS. Well, I am not sure Whether the gentleman are together or not. but if you are together with the gentleman from Illinois if he is together with you, why, since I did not like your version well before I am not persuaded that his is much different or very much better. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered BY the gentleman from IllinoIs. All those in favor of the amendment, signify by saying ave. [Chorus of "ayes. The CHAIRMAN. All those opposed? [Chorus of "noes." The CHAIRMAN. The ayes appear to have it and the amendment is agreed to. the CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Illinois? Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman. I have a conforming amendment if I can find it. Can it be read? The CHAIRMAN. The clerk will read the amendment The CLERK. [reading] On page 1, line IS on the Sarbanes substitute beginning at the third paragraph, strike out the following: "The means used to implement this policy have included one or more of the following:" and insert in lieu thereof the following new language- "The means used to implement this course of conduct or plan included one or more of the following:" Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman?, The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman is recognized for- 5 minutes. Mr. RAILSBACK. Mr. Chairman, I think the language speaks for itself and I am not going to belabor it. The CHAIRMAN--- The. question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman. All those in favor please say aye. [Chorus of "ayes."] The CHAIRMAN. All those opposed? [Chorus of "hoes."] The CHAIRMAN-. The ayes have it, and the amendment is agreed to. [00.08.32]